Friday, March 03, 2017

Iran's former hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter Sunday to President Donald Trump, striking a somewhat conciliatory tone while applauding immigration to America and saying it shows "the contemporary U.S. belongs to all nations."

It isn't the first dispatch sent by Ahmadinejad, who has counted U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama among his pen pals.

But this letter, weighing in at over 3,500 words, comes as criticism of Trump over his travel ban affecting seven Muslim-majority countries including Iran mounts in Tehran. It also may serve to burnish Ahmadinejad's image domestically after the nation's Supreme Leader warned him not to run in Iran's upcoming May presidential election.

In the letter, published by Iranian media outlets, Ahmadinejad noted Trump won the election while he "truthfully described the U.S. political system and electoral structure as corrupt."

Ahmadinejad decried U.S. "dominance" over the United Nations, as well as American meddling in the world that has brought "insecurity, war, division, killing and (the) displacement of nations."

He also acknowledged the some 1 million people of Iranian descent living in America, saying that U.S. policies should "value respect toward the diversity of nations and races."

"In other words, the contemporary U.S. belongs to all nations, including the natives of the land," he wrote. "No one may consider themselves the owner and view others as guests or immigrants."

One would think that the fact that foreigners from Portugal, Libya, and Iran, from Hoyt to Gaddafi to Ahmadinejad, so fervently endorse the concept of American civic nationalism, would give the American adherents of the Zeroth Amendment, Magic Dirt, the Melting Pot, Proposition Nationalism, and the sacred teachings of Judeo-Christ a moment's pause.

But, of course, it doesn't. Because what passes for the civic nationalist's reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with reason, much less the copious and well-documented facts of history. The basis for the civic nationalist's civic nationalism is nothing more than wanting to believe that they are a good person, as defined by their adherence to the false historical propaganda of self-serving foreigners. And that submission to the false historical narrative is their gateway drug to the complete abandonment of the truth that is social justice convergence.

What was Gaius Julius Caesar but a Celt born in Rome, after all?

"We all bleed red," the President, himself a civic nationalist, says. But kangaroos and buffalo also bleed red, which makes it a nonsensical metric for defining marsupials, mammals, or Americans. It is, of course, nothing more than rhetoric designed to appeal to the unthinking civic nationalists and make them feel good.

When Ahmadinejad says that "the contemporary US belongs to all nations", he is stating openly that there is no American nation. Interestingly enough, and unlike most civic nationalists, he is precise enough to distinguish between America 1.0 and America 3.0. But the reason that he, and various other enemies of America, have so eagerly adopted the universalist idea of "everyone is an American" is because it harms the actual American nation, which is already fragmented and unable to clearly distinguish between itself and the rest of the world.

The 100-year psychological destruction of the American nation is one of the greatest psychological operations in history, and if you are a civic nationalist, then you need to know that you are an active participant in the destruction of the very nation and the very society that you claim to love.

A cannot be Not-A. American can never be Not-American. That is reason. That is logic. That is historical fact. To claim otherwise is to take the first step into the illogic that leads to madness, habitual dishonesty, and self-delusion.

Foam Party, McAmnesty, Chuck-you Schumer, Palmetto Princess, Obungler, and now, Mahmoud Aqua-velva-jad. Quite a group, united by their desire to destroy America. I wonder what else they have in common?

I should note that, as usual, I do not pretend to define the term. I simply utilize the customary definition. If you're using anything else, then your snowflake definition is irrelevant.

In a liberal or civic form of nationalism, the community in question must not be restricted by any identity-related criteria (race, religion, culture, language, ethnic background, sexual orientation, etc.). A civic nation must include all those who reside within that nation’s borders.

Civic nationalisms represent nations made up of people who choose to join them either by emigrating to or by remaining in a particular country. The members identify themselves as a community of citizens — unified by a commitment to basic democratic ideals — who share not only membership in a political system but who also recognize obligations to one another and to a common good that benefits the whole national community.

Not my definition. That's the Huffington Post, but you'll see much the same thing from Wikipedia and everywhere else. Note that civic nationalism was, in part, defined by the same man who provided us with social justice, John Stuart Mill.

I have always despised leftists and other low-IQ anti-American groups for their illogical appeals to idiocy and for their fervent desire to destroy the nation. Lately, however, I find that I have come to a visceral hatred of them that does not abate. Gone are the days when my tolerant ridicule of them provides amusement. After all, who among us has not laughed at a millenial barista wearing cuffed skinny jeans that look like zhe dropped a. Load in zher pants? Now, though the laughter still wells up at such sights, I also wonder about the proper punishment for such a self-identified traitor, because that ridiculous gay outfit is a uniform and expressly worn as such. The times, they are a-changin.

How, then, can the Trump admin collude with Russians? Aren't they merely Americans as well? Perhaps someone could stick these alleged Russian agents with a pin and check the color of their blood - just to be sure.

Because Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. Yet somehow, "Liberte, Fraternite, Equalite" does not make everyone free, or French.

Civic nationalism is every bit as stupid and false as social justice, and it is arguably much more dangerous. It can be summarized as: America is an exceptional nation because America does not exist as a nation.

It's totally fucking idiotic. A completely incoherent non-starter. I'm embarrassed that I ever passively half-accepted it as a given without even once stopping to think it through.

Stilicho wrote:I have always despised leftists and other low-IQ anti-American groups for their illogical appeals to idiocy and for their fervent desire to destroy the nation. Lately, however, I find that I have come to a visceral hatred of them that does not abate. Gone are the days when my tolerant ridicule of them provides amusement. After all, who among us has not laughed at a millenial barista wearing cuffed skinny jeans that look like zhe dropped a. Load in zher pants? Now, though the laughter still wells up at such sights, I also wonder about the proper punishment for such a self-identified traitor, because that ridiculous gay outfit is a uniform and expressly worn as such. The times, they are a-changin.

I can relate. I think it mainly has to do with their continual adherence to the narrative in the face of all facts. At first it was funny how crazy they were, now it's apparent their idiocy is causing very serious and possibly irreparable damage to society. The stakes keep getting higher and they keep behaving as if it is no big deal and the people actually trying to fix things are the problem.

... — who share not only membership in a political system but who also recognize obligations to one another and to a common good that benefits the whole national community.

And, as usual with ideal-based systems, the whole thing breaks down at the last line. America 2.0 immigrants were pretty sketchy on recognizing 'obligations to one another' and 'a common good'. America 3.0 immigrants are all about the ethnic gibs.

... — who share not only membership in a political system but who also recognize obligations to one another and to a common good that benefits the whole national community.

And, as usual with ideal-based systems, the whole thing breaks down at the last line. America 2.0 immigrants were pretty sketchy on recognizing 'obligations to one another' and 'a common good'. America 3.0 immigrants are all about the ethnic gibs.

No nationalism = no civics.

One need look no further than the Mexican flags they so enthusiastically wave.

Now that it has been exposed thoroughly, I look at a lot of the oppomedia now, and ask if it is the intelligence agencies' Derp State plants there pumping out the stories at certain times. They are obviously all globalists.

The mild collusion between the two is old news (Operation Mockingbird, first revealed in 1979) but I never knew it was that extensive.

Something I've noticed about idealists is their tendency to agree on objective realities right up until they notice the philosophical impilcations. It's counterintuitive, but you can trust an idealist with anything except abstractions.

In the King James Bible "commonwealth" gets a single mention.It's Jesus' bequest, right and inheritance.Fast forward to tomorrow.One of the biggest single mistakes of the last 100 years was the Johnson Ammendment. Separation of Church and State will go on killing you until the lesson gets learnt.

This shit is getting frustrating beyond tolerance. At least we should see some fancy new ways to exterminate people once this crap kicks off and goes hot.Wwii killed 3% of global population. If we repeat that it's about 200 million dead this time around and the density of populations probably means disease and starvation easily doubles that.

@Jeff Wood There hasn't been so concerted an effort to shove the lie down Italians' throats and the Italian people haven't been as betrayed by their politicians for as long, inviting the unwanted of the world to become Italians. Like they actually could.

US was never a "nation". It was always a cocktail of nations and cultures, one that was at least at the beginning predominantly British...

"Nation" isn't something that can be engineered into existence, whatever your Freemason founders thought. Enjoy your just deserts, rest of the world is watching your painful and undignified death with great pleasure.

The lack of any real education in philosophy and logic amongst any real portion of the population is a serious issue and in some ways a root cause to this mess. If these idiots could mentally explore the depths and implications of their ideals any deeper than an NYT OpEd than there is no way we'd see a fraction of this garbage.

Meme to a passing Churchians,Separation of Church and state lead seamlessly to Planned Parenthood selling body parts.The only thing wrong with the The Separation is that is bad theology and very bad politics.Apart from that maybe you put your shoes on correctly. I mean lets give credit where credit is due. You might have managed to put your right foot in your right shoe. So summarises your achievements to date in jurisprudence.

"We all bleed red," the President, himself a civic nationalist, says. But kangaroos and buffalo also bleed red, which makes it a nonsensical metric for defining marsupials, mammals, or Americans. It is, of course, nothing more than rhetoric designed to appeal to the unthinking civic nationalists and make them feel good.

I've never been clear on what your immigration policy might be, if you were to create one. If a cannot ever be not-a, does this mean all countries should completely ban immigration, always? Or just that there should be very low quotas? And, assuming an absolutely ideal reversal of the current attitudes (which is almost certain not to happen) what would the fallout be? Would we try to deport everyone with non-Anglo blood? I am fourth generation Scandinavian, for example. How would that be accomplished?I'm not asking these questions in an attempt to strawman. I've read Cuckservative and am still not sure on some of this.

If a cannot ever be not-a, does this mean all countries should completely ban immigration, always? Or just that there should be very low quotas? And, assuming an absolutely ideal reversal of the current attitudes (which is almost certain not to happen) what would the fallout be? Would we try to deport everyone with non-Anglo blood?

No. Yes. You're wrong. There will be a severe reversal of the current attitudes. The only way to avert widespread bloodshed is aggressive repatriations. Who knows and who cares.

Seriously, I am so sick of "but what about MEEEEE" reactions to these issues. FFS, when the issue of whether it is wise for the USA to go to war with Zimbabwe or not, is one of your first questions about the likelihood of the Zimbabwean Air Force bombing your fucking house?

In an age of sentiment, "civic nationalism" as a term is seductive because it sounds pretty. Its only use might be to sell nationalism as a whole - entryism, if you will, to the less erudite or succinct masses. Those masses being the ones where you would need syllogisms to explain.

This is just one euphemism as an attempt to carve up the US between globalist powers, much like any other colonial movements ganged up to carve up other places - e.g., the Turks manipulating the West and the Slavs to take out the Byzantines, the Great Powers in China, the breakup of the Western Roman Empire, among others.

The parasitic classes look at institutional decay and foment it in the hopes of conquest. I think it should be clear that the dictum here is that the enemies of the West, in particular the United States, don't see themselves in a philosophical debate - they're at war with us.

Somewhat related; shitlib "scientists" are attacking Razib Khan for esposing HBD and being linked to the Alt-Right:https://undark.org/article/race-science-razib-khan-racism/

"Still, Khan’s career exemplifies the sometimes-murky line between mainstream science and scientific racism, and it illustrates how difficult it can be to define the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable speech about race — and to understand what, if anything, science has to do with it.

"This issue isn’t going away. Researchers are getting better at quantifying minute differences among individuals and among groups, and their findings will almost certainly be used, as they have long been, by people willing to ascribe a sort of racial destiny to all manner of human virtues and faults. Most scientists will object to this application of their work, but the illiberal challenges to scientific scholarship, perhaps now more than ever, seem destined to come not just from creationists and neo-skinheads, but from self-styled hyper-rationalists, too — from people who adhere to what they consider a“science-first” worldview, who often ignore history and social context,and who are predisposed to drawing troubling, and sometimes patently racist conclusions based on otherwise dispassionate science."

@KSC: It would have been better if we had not allowed 19th century immigration to take place. However, that is water under the bridge.

Future policies will likely be established by either 'Separation' or the 'Sword'. Or, as I believe, 'Separation' followed by a 'Sword', wherein revanchist European-Americans reconquer there birthright. That being the whole of the United States from Atlantic to Pacific and Arctic to Rio Grande.

As for being a Scandinavian, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Whatever 'United States' comes out of this crisis, it will likely be Northern European White with an admixture of a small percentage of 'Other' Europeans, African, Asian and Latin American peoples.

aegis-1080 wrote:Because, according to leftist myth, America got their riches over the backs of the poor non-whites of the world, so it must be dissolved and their wealth shared among all non-white nations.JWS always project.

Stilicho wrote:I have always despised leftists and other low-IQ anti-American groups for their illogical appeals to idiocy and for their fervent desire to destroy the nation. Lately, however, I find that I have come to a visceral hatred of them that does not abate.Yep. We really should have made the wogs and (((wh– uh, commies read Kipling in school.

If the alt right fails. Will the US become like the latin american countries? With a european upper class and non european populace? I somehow dont think so, i dont think history repeats itself so exaclty. Or rather, the US today turning into a demographic more akin to Brazil or argentina, is a very very different starting position than Argentina turning into Argentina, when it did so.

Or will the US fracture into different states? That is not on the horizing realistically yet. But if central authority is persistently captured by powers catering to the latin americans, would that change? But then, compared to the civil wars, the states of the US have a much weaker sense of self. Would sufficient numbers of people really risk their lives and kill for the states today?

Or are the globalist right, can they ride the US population into the ground, ever more fractured, ever more without sense of self, ever more helpless?

The Left has been fighting against real scientific inquiry for some time. This is just another salvo in their long war. This goes back to Marx, but Lysenko is a great example, as is "climate change science."

Science, to the Left, is evil when it promotes empirical facts because empiricism is a weapon of deception for capitalism/imperialism/white supremacy (yes, they actually say this). Since genetics show high rates of inbreeding, infidelity, and low IQ in some world populations, genetics will no longer be considered a legitimate field - unless its used to usurp "imperialism". Just look at how genetics are blamed for obesity and to make fun of rural white Americans. Those are fine - but to point out actual problems of genetics depends on the political goals or sentiments.

Prediction: designer babies for the elite is good, third world genetics are good, Euro-centered genetics are bad. Lefties will work hard to converge the fields of genetics studies soon, if they have not already begun.

This reminds me of the way discussions of whether a town should be allowed to ban strip clubs always devolves into claims that soon you'll be burning all the library's art books that contain pictures of classic nudes. As if there's no reasonable middle-ground or room for exceptions, despite all the historical evidence that there is.

We have a long way to go just to get rid of the illegals, then a loooong way to go to get back to 1965 demographics. Then (if we decide to go further, which I think unlikely unless we wait too long) a looooooong way to go to reach something like Japan-style homogeneity. And even then, as in Japan today, there would be room for some foreigners.

Turning discussions of reasonable immigration restrictions in 2017 into fretting that someday, for some unforeseen reason, some American's loyal wife could get deported, is just....silly. I can't think of a better word for it. It's like looking outside and seeing a light drizzle, and putting on a helmet because you never know when rain can turn into baseball-sized hail.

The Old Order, or Natural Order is the ethnic state. America is not a nationality. That is why I always call myself a European, or a Greek-American. There needs to be a hyphen in the description of what is an American. Just like Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, all of these lands are the diaspora of the Anglo-Saxon. They are NOT nations but diasporas. If the Anglo-Saxons in those countries adopted kings and the kings were for their ethnic countrymen, then they could be called nations.

America, today, is a farrago.

Furthermore, one can also add that the Teutonic European, as opposed to the Slavic European, (Teutonic meaning the German peoples, Bavarians, Saxony, Swizter Duetsch, Austrian Duetsch, etc, to the Dutch, Swedish, Norwegians, the the Anglo-Saxons of Britain, to the Franks of France, all Teutons) have become a race of whack-a-doodles. They have literally lost their minds. When one adopts error, leaves truth, then God gives them over to losing their minds--and that is the state of the Teutonic peoples--they have lost their minds.

VD wrote:Civic nationalism is every bit as stupid and false as social justice, and it is arguably much more dangerous. It can be summarized as: America is an exceptional nation because America does not exist as a nation.

It's totally fucking idiotic. A completely incoherent non-starter. I'm embarrassed that I ever passively half-accepted it as a given without even once stopping to think it through.

VD wrote:it's clear that I defined civic nationalism far differently than you do.

How do you define "civic nationalism"? Why do you add the adjective if you're simply describing nationalism proper?

From my understanding of the alt-right, people who don't meet a certain standard that goes beyond civic citizenship are not true Americans.

I am willing to concede a lack of understanding of end goal, here, but my use of civic was to define American as any who are currently legal citizens without any statement on who may become Americans in the future. I found it useful to describe Trump to friends who thought he wanted to get rid of hispanics and blacks (yes, they are delusional).

In other words, if you are already a citizen, no one is taking it away from you. But for future reference, we most certainly shouldn't be as free-wheeling with handing out citizenship to all and sundry.

This also has no bearing on how I viewed any future conflict or civil war.

I add the adjective because I don't think it is nationalism proper. I only find it useful as a political movement to where we are at this moment in dealing with current citizenry. Not at all useful if things change to more conflict or in deciding who becomes a citizen from here forward.

Comments from anyone from Iran, Israel, anywhere in Asia or all those whose ancestors hail from these places of pervasive clannishness, nepotism and reveling in "getting over on" the other guy should always be IGNORED.

Con artists gonna' con. When those whose culture dictates that lying to get what you want is perfectly normal are talking, I always assume they're in Con Artist Mode.

The world is the movie "The Sting" writ large, and WE are their intended marks. We should never forget this.

The Trad Catholic Ann Barnhardt overheard a conversation at a restaurant between lawyers then attending a conference at a local university. The first thing that they talked about was that "Nationalism is bad and has to be purged from all of humanity". It is here: http://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/03/01/so-i-went-out-to-eat-last-night-and-a-group-of-champagne-communists-sat-down-at-the-next-table/

VD wrote:I should note that, as usual, I do not pretend to define the term. I simply utilize the customary definition. If you're using anything else, then your snowflake definition is irrelevant.

In a liberal or civic form of nationalism, the community in question must not be restricted by any identity-related criteria (race, religion, culture, language, ethnic background, sexual orientation, etc.). A civic nation must include all those who reside within that nation’s borders.

Civic nationalisms represent nations made up of people who choose to join them either by emigrating to or by remaining in a particular country. The members identify themselves as a community of citizens — unified by a commitment to basic democratic ideals — who share not only membership in a political system but who also recognize obligations to one another and to a common good that benefits the whole national community.

Not my definition. That's the Huffington Post, but you'll see much the same thing from Wikipedia and everywhere else. Note that civic nationalism was, in part, defined by the same man who provided us with social justice, John Stuart Mill.

It wasn't so much my own definition so much as two words that mean something and I thought described Trump's positions rather well.

There's a lot in that definition you quote I find disturbing and disgusting.

My use of civic is for legally defined citizenship, which that definition clearly doesn't consider. My use of civic nationalism for politics in that a government works for all its citizens, which this definition continues to sound like proposition nation globalism re-packaged.

44, 45. Blogger ZhukovG I have gathered as much. I also read the article about the professor that commented the alt right, stuffs happening in white america under the surface, it would seem. This might be an interesting effect of the SJW rabid opression, that us whites become more sly and learn to act more subtly.

Well, as a European, my dream scenario is that the US splits up into several different states. The overbearing power of the US has been catastrophic for Europe, imho.

Im not sure if this would be bad thing for Amerikaners. Empire and hegemonic power is a false God, imho. But then, this is for you Amerikaners to decide for yourselves.

My use of civic is for legally defined citizenship, which that definition clearly doesn't consider. My use of civic nationalism for politics in that a government works for all its citizens, which this definition continues to sound like proposition nation globalism re-packaged.

It's the same damn thing, CM. That's the point you're shying away from . That's the point you're trying to evade.

A nation is people. A nation is DNA and language and tradition and blood. It isn't citizenship. It isn't paperwork.

VD wrote:my use of civic was to define American as any who are currently legal citizens without any statement on who may become Americans in the future.

That is precisely the same definition of civic nationalism to which I referred. You're just hiding from the logical conclusions and consequences. Another name for it would be Paperwork People.

So is there no distinction between dealing with what we already have and preventing future stupidity vs all who want to come are citizens no matter what?

I confess, I have not been well versed in the philosophies here. I was 16 when I labeled myself a nationalist while studying 20th century American history and I have found your writings articulate my beliefs quite well and have given them shape.

You have frequently said to work where you are. If we have a country with diverse citizenry that is still at some kind of peace (albeit uneasy and possibly short lived), do we revoke citizenship of those we don't consider deserving or do we continue to treat them as citizens while radically changing our policies for future immigrants?

if multiculturalism and vibrancy is so fkn great why all those nations, say in the Middle East (but obviously not only in the Middle East) don't practice it, at all? it's virtualy impossible to gain citizenship of Quatar, Kuwait, UEA, Iran, Saudi Arabia, list goes on and on. why don't they follow their own golden and humanitarian advice?

obviously recipe for whole Western World is completely opposite, we have to get White again, one way or another throw away invaders and stop being soft milky cow for thirld world savages

@59 "There's a lot in that definition you quote I find disturbing and disgusting.My use of civic is for legally defined citizenship, which that definition clearly doesn't consider. My use of civic nationalism for politics in that a government works for all its citizens, which this definition continues to sound like proposition nation globalism re-packaged."

"legally defined citizenship": like anchor babies? Then add 'their mothers and their brothers and their sisters and their aunts'?

How do you account for, protect, and continue the ACTUAL people who ACTUALLY created this nation and country? Or are you okay with the destruction (/replacement) of those people by people who NEVER have and cannot now (or ever) build or maintain such a nation and country? Is it okay with you that these "citizens" (love the "Paperwork People" name, Vox!) cannot and will not continue the country they have invaded and are working -- consciously or not -- to destroy??

How do you account for, protect, and continue the ACTUAL people who ACTUALLY created this nation and country? Or are you okay with the destruction (/replacement) of those people by people who NEVER have and cannot now (or ever) build or maintain such a nation and country? Is it okay with you that these "citizens" (love the "Paperwork People" name, Vox!) cannot and will not continue the country they have invaded and are working -- consciously or not -- to destroy??

We have a long way to go just to get rid of the illegals, then a loooong way to go to get back to 1965 demographics. Then (if we decide to go further, which I think unlikely unless we wait too long) a looooooong way to go to reach something like Japan-style homogeneity. And even then, as in Japan today, there would be room for some foreigners.

I suspect this will be a phase change situation and not a linear change. As such I personally suspect it will shock everyone without quickly and How Deeply it takes place. If we do see if he's changed she could easily see large-scale attempts at ethnic cleaning by multiple groups in the US resulting and whatever the end state is in less than a decade

No one can predict the future with any certainty. But we can make logical assumptions based on established facts.

The same messed up human nature, that has driven history for every other country and empire since the beginning of time is also at work in the United States. We do not get a special exemption, no matter what Chancellor Bismark said.

We are divided and further dividing right now. There will be conflict between the divided groups as they compete politically, economically and geographically.

What exactly the United States will look like in 50 years, I have no idea. But it will be very different from what it is today.

@63 "[b]I confess, I have not been well versed in the philosophies here. I was 16 when I labeled myself a nationalist while studying 20th century American history and I have found your writings articulate my beliefs quite well and have given them shape.

You have frequently said to work where you are. [/b]"

Good. Keep going then. You're not necessarily on the wrong path -- you're seemingly on the good path, just a 'fur-piece' behind us. Read Vox's 16 Points, and research what underlies them. Read Steve Sailer and Paul Keirsey and Jared Taylor. (Hell, if you want a baptism by fire, read David Duke's "My Awakening." It's a surprisingly useful counterbalance to the mainline propaganda. And not all frothing and bombastic as the MSM would have you believe. It's even well-referenced.)

"[b]If we have a country with diverse citizenry that is still at some kind of peace (albeit uneasy and possibly short lived), do we revoke citizenship of those we don't consider deserving or do we continue to treat them as citizens while radically changing our policies for future immigrants?[/b]"

Ah, the 'peace' that only exists in the mainstream (lying) media. Go check out "White Girl Bleed A Lot" -- and see what you're not being told. (Flaherty only covers black-on-white MOB violence; there are way too many singleton attacks to cover!) YouTube has started censoring videos of black-on-white assaults, attacks and mob violence; but try searching for black-on-white violence. You BELIEVE this country has some kind of peace only because reality is being hidden from you!

Oh, and we don't need to start (for now) with revoking citizenship: Except anchor babies -- they HAVE to go back! Do you not know that concept only "showed up" in 1982, in a footnote in a Supreme Court decision? There's no "American history" of that crap.) So, let's start by casting out the 60-80 MILLION non-citizens. THEN we can see who needs to lose citizenship!

"legally defined citizenship": like anchor babies? Then add 'their mothers and their brothers and their sisters and their aunts'?

NO. What I'd like is revoking that policy. But would you retro-actively revoke what was already given? If you would, what consequences do you see occurring? Is it possible to build policy around that or is this discussion for a post-government collapse?

How do you account for, protect, and continue the ACTUAL people who ACTUALLY created this nation and country?Since I'm largely approaching this from a government policy and civic position, anything that increases birth rates among middle class white America, either through Trump's child care provision or policies that facilitate families making enough to live on one salary. If it was possible, I would even support policies that disincentive female work participation (Ireland has the highest birth rate and the lowest female work participation... they also have a lower standard of living for 1st world countries). Policies that disincentivize using children for welfare abuse. Seriously limiting or completely halting immigration. Passing more stringent terror, sedition, and treason laws that revoke citizenship of entire immediate families of violators. Basically ANYTHING that is even barely feasible to get through our law system.

Or are you okay with the destruction (/replacement) of those people by people who NEVER have and cannot now (or ever) build or maintain such a nation and country?

NO.

Is it okay with you that these "citizens" (love the "Paperwork People" name, Vox!) cannot and will not continue the country they have invaded and are working -- consciously or not -- to destroy??

No. My only contention is WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THEM within a legal, governing framework.

The only thing I am shying away from here is the practical out working of getting what it is we think is best. How do we get from here to there?

Ah, the 'peace' that only exists in the mainstream (lying) media. Go check out "White Girl Bleed A Lot" -- and see what you're not being told. (Flaherty only covers black-on-white MOB violence; there are way too many singleton attacks to cover!) YouTube has started censoring videos of black-on-white assaults, attacks and mob violence; but try searching for black-on-white violence. You BELIEVE this country has some kind of peace only because reality is being hidden from you!

I readily confess to being a coward and stroking a soft spot here. I am not surrounded by violence but readily acknowledge it's existence. My friends haven't turned on me, but I see clearly they would and have put some distance there.

In my sheltered world, there are still people around me that make me uneasy about a broad brush revocation of citizenship. That's what we would be talking about, right?

If we have a country with diverse citizenry that is still at some kind of peace

We have MS-13 sacrificing/killing 14yo girls this week. 5JewsFakeNews ignored the black moslem serial killer of gays in 3 states, during the week of Cecil the lion coverage a Mexican was caught on video tossing the body of 8yo white girl Maddie Middleton into a dumpster after he raped her to death. A Trump supporter was attacked by 12 nigglets in OH this week if races reversed it would be covered. Check out the top 200 black pack attacks at White Girl Bleed a Lot

I consider myself as Jewish as anyone born in Israel. I'm sure the Arab population there would agree

I consider Somali moslems as jewish as anyone born in Israel. Jews should want the same policies for their host nations as their homeland.

I'm embarrassed that I ever passively half-accepted it as a given without even once stopping to think it through.

Imagine trying to explain to a govt contractor that gay marriage to a meth using former male whore is a bad idea .

"NO. What I'd like is revoking that {anchor babies} policy. But would you retro-actively revoke what was already given?"

Yes, of course! If the IRS sends you an overpayment, do they just write it off? (Well, IRS... so yeah maybe -- esp. if you're illegal...) If the government wrongly releases a bad hombre from jail -- do they just shrug and say: not our problem?

"If you would, what consequences do you see occurring? Is it possible to build policy around that or is this discussion for a post-government collapse?"

It doesn't matter what consequences -- because the consequences if we don't do it -- and do it soon -- will absolutely be a horrendous civil war! As Vox often writes: a homogeneous society COMES FROM a heterogeneous one: by either forced eviction or war-and-death! Either we try to manage this oncoming war with (yes, forced) eviction of illegal invaders) or we create a way more dangerous result.

"Since I'm largely approaching this from a government policy and civic position, anything that increases birth rates among middle class white America, either through Trump's child care provision or policies that facilitate families making enough to live on one salary. If it was possible,"

It is NOT possible. Whites cannot and never will "out-breed" our enemies. It would be REALLY helpful if we'd STOP supporting, paying for and helping our enemies outbreed us, but there is no possible case for success by trying to produce more children. (Our enemies HAVE to go back!)

" ... Basically ANYTHING that is even barely feasible to get through our law system."

Alas, you’re still trying to find a 'legal' ("civic") way to prevent the oncoming war. Do you see that our enemies (both internal and external) do NOT play by our "civic" systems? They use our systems against us, but they do not feel in any way bound by them. Yes? If you’re trying to negotiate a deal with, say, an Arabic speaker but you don’t speak Arabic and he doesn’t speak English, HOW can any negotiation occur? If we want our nation to survive, and they want to take it over (which must result in its destruction), HOW can any ‘legal’ result occur?

"Or are you okay with the destruction (/replacement) of those people by people who NEVER have and cannot now (or ever) build or maintain such a nation and country?NO."

Keep working with that idea; THAT is what leads you to full-on Alt Right nationalism, and not a watered-down "polite" civic nationalism.

"... My only contention is WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THEM within a legal, governing framework."

If "they" neither recognize nor hold to "a legal, governing framework," on what basis can you see trying to do it legally having ANY effect toward saving our nation? If you pass a law that rats or cockroaches MAY NOT enter your house, and you obey that law -- how do you make the vermin obey it? You can't. Your (ONLY!) choices are poison or weapons. (We can’t move house, there are no more empty houses left.)

We make a semi-allowance that the "vermin" currently destroying our "house" have SOME moral (or at least somewhat conscious) agency, and CAN respond to the application of incentives: "get the hell out or we WILL apply violence" (and, yes, rounding them up is violence). Self-deportation is the only chance the vermin have for a 'non-violent' escape. Their choice! (They MUST go back!)

"The only thing I am shying away from here is the practical out working of getting what it is we think is best. How do we get from here to there?"

We keep educating OUR people (build your local tribe).Arm up and ammo up. Prepare, it's coming.We keep trying to un-brainwash our internal enemies (even though it's futile). We're not actually trying to reach the idiot-lefties; we're speaking past them to the lurkers and the audience, by addressing the idiots.We keep visibly and actively supporting the God Emperor and pressuring the NeverTrumpers and idiot leftists that if they want any chance (and it's not real) to keep their snouts in the govt trough, they need to actively support Trump or we WILL force them out!

We Alt Righters (if I may describe how I see them/us) are trying to prevent the oncoming civil war. We are trying to slow or mitigate the destruction we see coming. (Oh, and read Anonymous Conservative's book and blog. I'm assuming you've read "Cuckservatives" and "SJWs Always Lie.") We will probably not be able to prevent the war; we're hoping to make it less horrific.

"We Alt Righters (if I may describe how I see them/us) are trying to prevent the oncoming civil war. We are trying to slow or mitigate the destruction we see coming."

This is the central truth to the matter. We tend to be the historically literate crowd. We're telling people not to destroy our Caesar, the God Emperor Trump, in the hope that the national reforms needed will go through.

The assassination of Caesar led to Augustus. Just like the radical Jacobins, who usurped the working class revolution in France, were toppled by Napoleon.

If they let us reform things peacefully, we know it will work out well. If things are not done peacefully, we know where these things lead - and it never works out for the Optimates or the Jacobins.

The members identify themselves as a community of citizens — unified by a commitment to basic democratic ideals — who share not only membership in a political system but who also recognize obligations to one another and to a common good that benefits the whole national community.Note - "democratic ideals", "Membership in a political system".Not even Ameriboo. (adopting the mores and culture)

Not even any proposition.Certainly not any Biblical roots.

Civic nationalism is NOT nationalism as nothing in it seeks to preserve the culture and Traditions.

Even the propositioners are ahead as they try a reductio ad absurdam on the culture and traditions, but miss that the Declaration and Constitution were overlaid on a national culture and failed when attempted anywhere else.

@37 VD and @46 Cail - Can either of you, or someone else, explain to me why even a small amount of immigration is needed a/o desired? Both of you say some small amount should happen. But why? What benefit does a small amount of immigration grant a populace, and does it grant it in all conditions?

For America, say we get rid of the 60-80 million invaders, and that brings our numbers down to around 200-250 million. Why, at such a size, would we want immigration? Japan is at 127 million, why should they have a small amount of immigration?

I just don't understand what the benefits are. What did my Italian ancestors, in coming over to America in the 20th century, really give this nation? And what did we take away from leaving our people?

Cail - Can either of you, or someone else, explain to me why even a small amount of immigration is needed a/o desired? Both of you say some small amount should happen.

I did not say that. I said that, in the real world, even nations with extremely tight borders generally allow some foreigners into their midst -- diplomats and traders, if nothing else -- and that's fine. That doesn't mean those nations can't be nationalist. But if a nation wants to evict/keep out every single foreigner, that's fine with me too.

I was just pointing out that it's ridiculous to fret about what happens if we deport 80 million people and are enjoying it so much we start deporting each other, when we're just now starting to be able to deport illegals who have killed people while drunk driving. It's just another conversation derailment tactic.

VD or anyone else interested, could you add some insight to what I've written below, or further refine these categories?

Far left - actively hates the West (America, Europe) and has worked for a hundred years or so to destroy the pillars of the West (via communism, feminism, race-equalism, white-hatred-ism, atheism, etc. and more watered down versions of these). This is what permeates the social "science" side of the social justice and academic community.

Globalists - less of an active hatred of the West (though the left-leaning globalists certainly hate the West), most don't consciously hate the West but just want to have free movement of goods and people. Most of the elites want it to increase profits and political control and bring about more expansive "unions": European Union, North American Union, then Hillary's Western Hemisphere Union, and eventually Global Union. Globalism is one tool of the West-haters since it will inevitably lead to the weakening and destruction of the West. Many of the inhabitants of poor nations want this since they want to come to rich countries to benefit materialistically at the expense of the average and poor of the recipient countries.

Civic Nationalists - Defined by loyalty to and love of country. People are judged by the content of their character and not their race, religion, sex or any other characteristic beyond their support of the country. Put citizens of one's own country first, not those of other countries. Immigrants can come if they will assimilate. Donald Trump is an example. Perhaps can succeed if done to a limited degree and very carefully and assimilation is enforced but in practice it has proved difficult since there are forces that want to bring in peoples that will change the country to be more politically aligned with what they want (e.g. bring in more leftward voters). Also, can work well when times are prosperous but when troubles arise many people will default to their non-civic identities (race, religion, ideology).

Nationalists - Defined by a common race, religion, ideology and certain other characteristics. Looks out for the interests of itself. Can live peacefully as a neighbor of other nations but will obviously go to war at times.

In the current West, leftism and globalism have made huge strides in taking over the cultural institutions. However, among many average people and some elites, civic nationalism still is strong and nationalism is growing.

Many people that have been under the trance of Leftist-hatred-of-the-West and globalist bromides are awakening to realize that at very least they should put their own country first (civic nationalism) and some are realizing that nationalism (or some approximation thereof) is what they would really like.

But reawakening civic nationalism is the first step in saving the West so that the destructive policies of the Left and the globalists can be reduced and reversed. People need to stop feeling ashamed of or hating whites and men and things like the manosphere and the alt-right and the alt-light and the broader Brexit and Trump and LePen and Geert Wilders movements are achieving these. I myself have moved from an idealistic and well-intentioned (though misguided) globalist who felt a bit of guilt (and a lot of accusation from leftists) for being a white man to throwing off the man-hating psychological shackles imposed by the feminists as I learned game (of the attracting women type) and even more as I came into the manosphere. Then as I read here and elsewhere and as I observed the increasingly hostile left that no longer preached equality of races (though they never really believed it and just used it as a tool to get whites to disarm) but wanted superior treatment for non-whites I realized that the globalist, no-borders types were ruining the West.

There is hope. If I can move from my former positions then many others can, and are doing so.

Trump's civic nationalism is an important step on the road to saving the West since renewing and strengthening a love of the West (and whatever country one may live in) is an important reversal from the West-hating indoctrinations of the leftists and the apathy-inducing bromides of the globalists. As more people start to love their own country and put America (or whatever country of the West they live in) first they will likely gradually shift even further towards nationalism as the social-justice warriors double and triple down into identity politics and push people who would ideally like to be civic nationalists into becoming nationalists out of pragmatism.

A small amount of immigration is like the German rocket scientists after WW2. Galt's gulch types.

The left hates science except for global warming cherry picking.Scientific Fact: Human life begins at conception so Abortion killing 60M already - climate change won't have that kind of death toll.Fact: Single mothers raise feral children, even daycare is damaging.

@46 The demographics will shift back when we restore American nationalism and it becomes hostile to those who like Sharia and welfare.

My use of civic nationalism for politics in that a government works for all its citizens This is why it is evil. I don't want a government that works for citizens who like Sharia, Welfare, neoconnery, or Latin America Cronyism. I want my government to work against such.

Bringing in the best and brightest, so long as they're not enemies of the nation, provides a high societal ROI. Think Einstein, von Braun, etc. The trick is to be highly selective and then ensure integration over time and understand that bringing in top people has a non-linear effect to the extreme. Bring in the best and exclude the rest. Allowing a thousand immigrants a year could give us 90% of the upside and avoid all the downside.

@75 The only people worried about the Iranian nuclear program are the cucks in this country. I have nothing to fear from the Iranian bomb but perhaps other countries do but that really is the essence of being a cuck in this context - you are concerned about other countries to the detriment of your own.

If we have a country with diverse citizenry that is still at some kind of peace (albeit uneasy and possibly short lived), do we revoke citizenship of those we don't consider deserving or do we continue to treat them as citizens while radically changing our policies for future immigrants?Ask Sweet Cakes or that florist in WA if we are at peace. Because cucks and churchians surrendered, it is like living in occupied territory.We don't have to revoke citizenship if we make it untenable for them to be citizens. Muslims who cannot do their Sharia thing will go home. No welfare will cause an exodus, as will a true rule of law.Prison, starvation, charity cases will be their only alternatives as citizens.That is the peaceful, easy way.(Perhaps Trump can get Justine Treudeau to fast-track Canadian citizenship for US passport holders, Canada as "B Ark")

Deport the illegals and 99% reduction in immigration, huge "being single" penalty in the tax code, huge dependent exemption in the tax code and being married bonus, and flat rate welfare (No more money for more kids and they could even raise the flat rate amount). Instant white baby boom and maybe no civil war in 20 years.

Civic Nationalists - Defined by loyalty to and love of country. People are judged by the content of their character and not their race, religion, sex or any other characteristic beyond their support of the country.

But there is the problem. 80 million don't love or support America, are of malicious character, and they want to change the USA into their theocracy or corrupt system, and are worse than the Pro-Soviet communist CITIZENS in the 1950's.

Ok Civic Nationalists, start purging these enemies of all that is American in whatever way you find acceptable and convenient if you aren't just a bunch of poseurs and cucks.

dc.sunsets wrote:@14@47 I'm embarrassed that I ever passively half-accepted it as a given without even once stopping to think it through.

I once accepted a lot of things that in hindsight are embarrassing. It's frankly nice to read others reflect this sentiment.There shouldn't be any shame in passively accepting something that we've been taught, especially if we're young enough to have expected to defer to experience at the time, it's something that we probably weren't interested enough in at the time to think through the implications, etc.

Some things I accepted passively because I simply didn't care very much about those things at various times in my life. Some things caused cognitive dissonance with me, but I set that cognitive dissonance aside and didn't worry too much about it (for me, a big one here would be some blank slatism before I read anything about HBD, or the notion that fascists were not Leftists) because it had little impact on my life.

Where we should be ashamed is to continue to hold cargo cult beliefs after we see clear evidence or have someone else hold our hand and guide us through exactly how they're wrong.

Yes, I agree that civic nationalism doesn't exist currently and hasn't existed in the US for 50 years or so. It has been extremely corrupted to allow in millions who don't love or support America, or who prefer a more socialist system. This was the plan of the leftists. And add the welfare system that would ensnare many blacks and attract many 3rd world immigrants to become the voting block that would shift the country leftwards.

44, 45. Blogger ZhukovG I have gathered as much. I also read the article about the professor that commented the alt right, stuffs happening in white america under the surface, it would seem. This might be an interesting effect of the SJW rabid opression, that us whites become more sly and learn to act more subtly.

Well, as a European, my dream scenario is that the US splits up into several different states. The overbearing power of the US has been catastrophic for Europe, imho.

Im not sure if this would be bad thing for Amerikaners. Empire and hegemonic power is a false God, imho. But then, this is for you Amerikaners to decide for yourselves.

No offense Martin but I don't you understand the differences between the people and the Federal Government here in the US. We elected Trump precisely because we are tired of DC wielding that hegemonic power you are so afraid of and running us into trillions of dollars of debt.

Breaking up the US would not be good for ANYONE. Who gets which Nukes? Yeah...think about that.

@HanSolo: Not that your Leftists and Globalists categories are wrong, but there is huge overlap there. Globalism is basically the philosophy of Trotsky—workers of the world unite. As Communism went through the membrane of cultural Marxism to try and poison the West who had initially rejected it, it turned into a kind of gray mush of a philosophy so that it could equally appeal to hard-line Trotskyite communists who wanted one NWO totalitarian state, neocon elitist plunderers who were more interested in lining their own pockets and maintaining their advantaged social position, all the way to otherwise nominally conservative Churchians who just want to feel good about themselves and virtue signal to their friends and family how tolerant they are.

It's not really an ideology. It's an idea who's time came and ran through almost every ideological stance in the West before it's time was over.

My only contention is WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THEM within a legal, governing framework

You're playing within TheGlobalists' illegal and immoral framework to begin with.Buy off your blackmailed faggots in Govt and pass immoral laws against the welfare of the people who built the land, and then argue within that purposeful, unnatural and dysgenic framework because it is now the law. A Babel-onians wet dream. You're conflating "the law" with morality, not to mention nature and history and their God.The immoral already happened long ago, and all manner of purposeful decline is the result.

@Gaiseric I think that a large part of globalism is: elites and low-cost labor of the world unite to open markets and borders in order to take advantage of cheap labor by offshoring or importing immigrants. Elites profit greatly from this and the lower-paid foreign workers make more money than they would otherwise. In China, wages for average workers have risen a lot in the last 10 or 15 years, to the point that many companies no longer want to build factories for export there.

The Left tends to hate the capitalist side of globalism, often under the mistaken idea that foreign workers are being exploited (actually the foreign companies are usually seen as better employers in these developing countries).

So will the agents of Deep State work for the present administration in countering threats from adversaries such as Iran when they are detected in the homeland? I am of the opinion that they would just as likely sit on such information, rather than bringing it to the attention of their true enemy. This would betray their oath and constitute treason. It would also make them into martyrs in the eyes of the nutso progressives.

“[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible… founded in good policy?… They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass… If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements.” - Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

So is there no distinction between dealing with what we already have and preventing future stupidity vs all who want to come are citizens no matter what?

Not anymore. There are 80 million+ non-Americans who are resident or have citizenship in the United States.

And yes, citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and deported. 600,000 Mexicans with US citizenship were denaturalized and deported under Eisenhower. It is a legal and perfectly Constitutional process with precedent.

The Old Order, or Natural Order is the ethnic state. America is not a nationality. That is why I always call myself a European, or a Greek-American. There needs to be a hyphen in the description of what is an American. Just like Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, all of these lands are the diaspora of the Anglo-Saxon. They are NOT nations but diasporas. If the Anglo-Saxons in those countries adopted kings and the kings were for their ethnic countrymen, then they could be called nations.

This is false. Ethnicity is just one part of what makes a nation a nation. Both the Scots and the Irish are Celts but you better believe they will sure as shit correct you if you say they are somehow the same nation. The person who is Anglo-Saxon that descended from pre-revolution American Settlers is not the same as the person who is descended from the Anglo-Saxon who remained in England. We can objectively observe this and it was objectively observed 300+ years ago. Filipinos are ethnically Malay but they sure as shit will take umbrage if you say they are Malaysian. Both the Russians, Ukranians, Poles and Serbs are Slav but they aren't the same nation. More to the point nations disappear and are born.

So there is most definitely a nation of Americans, New Zealanders and Australians.

Ewers wrote:US was never a "nation". It was always a cocktail of nations and cultures, one that was at least at the beginning predominantly British...

"Nation" isn't something that can be engineered into existence, whatever your Freemason founders thought. Enjoy your just deserts, rest of the world is watching your painful and undignified death with great pleasure.

"Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience. They differ from us little but in their principles of government, and most of those (merchants excepted) who come here, are sufficiently disposed to adopt ours." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:140

Without civil war what could be the path to pre-1965 demographics? We now have near half the population that can't agree to deport felon illegal aliens, much less anchor babies. I see more conservative friends, family and employees being disgusted with the current system and moving to an Alt right mentality; still hard to see a nonviolent path to nationalism that is free of chuck/libtards. Ideas?

"Among all likely voters, 51% favor building a wall on the border; 37% disagree, and 12% are not sure. Eighty percent (80%) support the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; only 11% are opposed."

It starts with Trump's focus deporting all illegal alien felons. Continue to deport non-felon illegal aliens as well and gradually ramp it up. This will also encourage some self-deportation.

Building the wall and not allowing visa overstays is the next step to keep the numbers from growing.

Then you need to crack down on companies hiring illegal aliens. Create and enforce proper work-authorization IDs that are nearly impossible to forge. With a lack of employment incentives, illegals will self-deport and stop coming.

Also have to crack down on welfare for illegals.

This can work to get rid of most of the 11 million (or is it 30M?) illegal aliens.

Then Trump engages in building up American civic nationalism to at least renew pride in America and counter some of the leftist anti-white, anti-American hatred.

I think the above is plausible and this gets us to a better situation but still not to 1965 demographics.

Beyond that it's more speculative:

SJWs and others will double down which will likely increase the awakening white identity politics in the US and they might start to vote to reduce welfare which could maybe cause a bit more of a return to their native lands of minorities (citizens and legal residents).

It's possible that if white identity politics rises enough that they will demand cultural assimilation of minorities but many minorities won't and will voluntarily leave.

This might lead to some kind of relatively peaceful split of the country (e.g. Cal-exit).

Or the above may be too optimistic and sooner or later conflict will break out and either mass expulsions will happen, war, or a fragmentation (say, into 3 regions: Leftist West Coast, Leftist Northeast, Center-Right Rest of Country).

You're playing within TheGlobalists' illegal and immoral framework to begin with.Buy off your blackmailed faggots in Govt and pass immoral laws against the welfare of the people who built the land, and then argue within that purposeful, unnatural and dysgenic framework because it is now the law.

The Boy Scouts won at the supreme court but 100+ (((lawfares))) later they are now letting trannies in as of January 2017

Looking at polls on many issues I'm believing that replacing representative democracy (and the oligarchy of leftist judges) with direct democracy would be better. If we had direct democracy there would be a wall already, no illegal alien felons allowed to roam free and many other good things across a whore range of issues.

VD: "Civic nationalism is every bit as stupid and false as social justice, and it is arguably much more dangerous. It can be summarized as: America is an exceptional nation because America does not exist as a nation. It's totally fucking idiotic. A completely incoherent non-starter."

It's because you're making the error (a rare thing for you, guvnor) of taking it seriously as a piece of honest, genuine thought, and trying to engage it in good faith. But it isn't that. It has about as much intellectual integrity as a bank-heist stick-up note.

In fact, that is exactly what it is. It is not a piece of intellectual engagement in any way, it's just camouflage for "give us all your shit, goyim/crackers/rednecks".

I've only been reading you for about a year now, but that was one hell of a post. It made finally me realize if I am to remain honest to myself, and the political goals I claim to want (MAGA), then claiming to be a civic Nationalist would contradict both of those. Some of just slower to come around than others. keep up the good work.

And yes, citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and deported. 600,000 Mexicans with US citizenship were denaturalized and deported under Eisenhower. It is a legal and perfectly Constitutional process with precedent

That's interesting.

Thank you for engaging and I appreciate the time you and Avalanche gave. I understand a bit better now, however I can't promise no more dense questions.

In my time, I have encountered the viewpoint that America truly belongs to the entire world....or at least that part of the world that can manage to fly, crawl, or swim to this country. That is not particularly shocking and a viewpoint that WE ACTIVELY CULTIVATE all over the world.But..But...BUT.....to insist that America belongs to the world, EXCEPT those people we all know to BE the Americans and have been the Americans for hundreds of years. That takes a special class of hubris.What they are saying (I think) is that they like this country very much, they simply do not want any of us still here when they arrive. They plan on arriving at some point and they intend to rule this country....without us. Why? Because WE have gone all over the world telling everyone that America is a FREE COUNTRY. Now you know what that means and I know what that means, but the foreign citizens really do not understand. Yes, America is a FREE COUNTRY means.....Free for the Taking. And since we have done such a nice job of building this country, why NOT bother to come here and claim a share of it? It is FREE, after all.

@126 HanSoloToo little time is spent in school discussing the hazards of democracy and the very good reasons why democracy has not been our goal or purpose as a nation.Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.Only egalitarians are in love with universal suffrage. It is the centerpiece of Liberal politics but it has never been a principle of American government for the same reason that equality has never been part of our political beliefs. Equality never existed and to my understanding, it never will. Men were never equal to women. Free men were not the equal of slaves. Property is not the equal of the landless masses that live in cities. Nowhere is this better summarized than in the idea of "One Man, One Vote". Something we take for granted today, but the idea did not exist until 1962 with the Warren Court decision Baker v Carr. It was two years later before the same notion was extended to state legislatures. Even then (and now), "One Man, One Vote" did not extend to the election of the president. Not even the Warren Court could eliminate the Electoral College, it being specifically required by the Constitution.

QUESTION FOR MR DAYYou have mentioned Spengler/David Goldman in the odd post - what do you think of Goldman's hero, the philosopher Franz Rozenweig and his thought on 'The nature and fate of Nations' ??

You're very welcome CM (both to my answers and to the 'farther' Alt Right and actual nationalism you can reach). Many of us have struggled the same struggle you're going through. It's part of our heritage (and part our most damaging flaw) to BE generally reasonable -- it's part of what makes our *nation* -- WE expect people to participate in a system, and views that turn out to be mainly specific to us (and our forebears).

As a young teen, I marched in civil rights marches with my (idiot-liberal) parents. As a newly minted Navy officer, I was aghast at just how DIFFERENT were the blacks and "hispanics" in the Navy: nothing at all like the (only two)(and upper middle class, at that) black girls in my school system! Exposure to "real" blacks in the Navy was a baptism by fire, for sure! Even the negro-animal who attacked me when I was 15 -- I blamed HIM for being a bad man, not his race for being 'like' that! ("NABALT")

You've described your milieu as almost entirely White; so was mine. And as is always pointed out: when the numbers favor Whites, the non-Whites pretend to fit in (and yes granted, standard "required" disclaimer: IKAGO); but as soon as they reach a certain percentage, reality shows up too!

The numbers in our White countries are getting insanely out of control. There will, necessarily, come an active "they MUST go back" -- and it will entail whatever is necessary to make that happen! Self-deportation (of those who 'walked' in) is a lesser evil. (It's not evil.) Flying them home is a worthwhile cost. Harsh, strict, and universal punishment for acting out (however "Nature-al" acting out is) to those who remain will be necessary.

In the '20's and '30's, U.S. blacks married, stayed married, worked for a living, and made sure their damned offspring behaved! The main reason they did that was because there was swift punishment if they did not! That, too, is necessary. There is no history of blacks anywhere ever building a successful civilization. "Where Africans are, there is Africa."

You must continue your awakening. You can't come half-way. (Well you can, but that makes you just another cuck.) Stick it out, take the pain of losing your inculcated delusions -- and reach true freedom!

@129 "(Vox:) And yes, citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and deported. 600,000 Mexicans with US citizenship were denaturalized and deported under Eisenhower. It is a legal and perfectly Constitutional process with precedent"

(CM:) That's interesting.Thank you for engaging and I appreciate the time you and Avalanche gave. I understand a bit better now, however I can't promise no more dense questions."

Love dense questions! Realize, CM -- *I* did not know what Vox posted. That's the point of dense questions and smarter people answering: everyone in the 'audience" learns stuff, or is exposed to stuff, they did not know before.

Old tai chi maxim: "learn one day, teach one day." Now you know a bit more, you can share that bit with folks who know a bit less than you! Build your tribe -- start awakening your neighbors and friends (carefully and judiciously -- don't put your head in a snake's mouth!) I send around bits of Vox's entries and a few 'culled comments' to my friends and acquaintances; not expecting them to start reading here -- but exposing them to bits and pieces that will lodge in their minds: will they, nil they! (A bell, once rung, can't be unheard!)

@Avalanche"But would you retro-actively revoke what was already given?

Yes, of course!"

Where are the Pieds-Noirs today? The Germans of East Prussia, the Sudetenland, etc.? How did they get there? Ethnic cleansing is permissible, and even laudable, when there's a "progressive," "anti-racist," "anti-colonialist" justification for it, apparently...

A cannot be Not-A? American can never be Not-American? Sir, by that logic, there are no Americans, simply a lot of British subjects who haven't paid any tax since 1783. British can never by Not-British, after all. Either anyone who says they're American is, or no-one is.

As an Israeli Jew I can tell you from close up, living in close quarters with people who want to wipe out your civilization is a nightmare. I just hope that when Europe wakes up and starts deporting its unwanted barbarians, they won't have a problem with us transferring the Arab population (those that are hostile to Israel) out of our tiny sliver of real estate. Whenever I've mentioned this idea before, people call me racist, etc. It's a simple fact of history, sometimes population transfers are necessary. I hope it can happen peacefully, as opposed to it happening in the context of a major regional war. Of course, I don't propose deporting those Arabs who are happy to be here under our sovereignty. The reason this is imperative is because we must eventually apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), and we cannot take care of all the hostile Arabs living there. Since retreating from the central mountain range, which dominates the coastal plain (which is home to 70% of the population) would be national suicide (a hostile Arab state would quickly import arms and "refugees," and leave us open to invasion from the east, among another host of reasons), population transfer seems the only solution. In a way, it's good to hear other westerners talking about population transfer rationally.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.